Talk:Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209071850/http://www.smics.com/eng/press/media_press_details.php?id=85444 to http://www.smics.com/eng/press/media_press_details.php?id=85444
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111029041259/http://www.smics.com:80/eng/press/media_press_details.php?id=58431 to http://www.smics.com/eng/press/media_press_details.php?id=58431
 * Added tag to http://harvardbusiness.org/product/semiconductor-manufacturing-international-corporation-reverse-bot/an/609062-PDF-ENG
 * Added tag to http://www.smics.com/eng/press/media_press_details.php?id=51108
 * Added tag to http://www.smics.com/eng/press/media_press_details.php?id=51107

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.ft.com/content/994bca54-7212-11e9-bf5c-6eeb837566c5. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 11:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

State-owned enterprise claims
SMIC is not a state-owned enterprise (SOE). It is a publicly listed company, which has received both private investment and investment from state semiconductor development funds. The sources that were given to source the SOE claim did not actually call SMIC a SOE. The term "SOE" has a specific meaning, and it's incorrect to label every company that receives investment from a state investment fund a SOE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Being publicly traded and having state ownership are not mutually exclusive here. SMIC is still a partially state-owned enterprise with another SOE, Datang Telecom Group, exercising significant minority ownership. That is clear from its annual report and is cited as such. Also, the term state-owned enterprise encompasses significant minority state ownership. It's accurate to refer to SMIC as partially state-owned. Amigao (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * SOE does not refer to every company with some state investment, and in the Chinese context, it has a specific meaning. SMIC is a publicly traded company, the large majority of shares are owned by private investors, and it does not fall under the same governance structures as Chinese SOEs. More importantly, unless reliable sources generally refer to SMIC as a SOE, we shouldn't do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "and in the Chinese context, it has a specific meaning” please elaborate on this, I wasn’t aware of this common term having a completely different meaning in the context of China. Just FYI a SOE doesn't have to have complete government control, its still an SOE if the government holds a minority stake but has control of the board or a veto. Theres also a very real debate about whether China has any private companies at all, their legal structure gives the government effective control of *all* companies operating in China . Now if your argument is that “private company” means something different in the Chinese context you have a strong argument, SOE means the same thing though. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there are private companies in China. I'm not going to get into an ideological debate about whether private companies truly exist in China. But I'll point out that there is a network of state-owned enterprises, largely derived from the old planned economy. SMIC is not one of those companies. It was founded as a private company (not even domiciled in China), was listed on the New York Stock Exchange until recently, when it IPOed in Shanghai. A few Chinese-government-owned funds have taken minority stakes in the company. Other major investors include state investment funds of Singapore and Abu Dhabi. If you look at List of government-owned companies, you'll see that the kinds of companies listed are truly national companies: companies like national airlines, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's not a list of every company that any government has a minority stake in (which would be an interminable list of companies, including companies throughout Europe and the US). -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Fannie and Freddie are both public companies, I own shares in both. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They were both created by the federal government, somewhat privatized, then taken over again in 2008. There's still privately held stock, but my understanding is that they're no longer listed on major exchanges and the government has a large majority stake in both. Regardless, my point is not to argue the details of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but to point out that the types of companies listed in List of government-owned companies are very different from SMIC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * SMIC is traded the exact same way in the US as Fannie and Freddie, through the OTC Markets Group. Since May 2020 the bare minimum percentage of SMIC thats state owned is 35%... Thats *just* China National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund and Shanghai Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund. Total state ownership appears to be well over 50%. Do you disagree? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your source for that claim of majority state ownership? Fannie and Freddie were literally created by the US government, and are, I believe, majority-owned by the US government. SMIC was founded by private individuals, domiciled outside of China, and floated on a foreign exchange. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article you added as a source does not call SMIC a "state-owned enterprise." It notes that a minority of SMIC's shares are owned by government-run investment funds, though it only discusses the situation in 2018, which is very different from now (SMIC has recently undergone a new funding round). That can be noted in the body of the article, but calling it "state-owned" in the lede and a "state-owned enterprise" in the sidebar is not accurate. This is a private company with some state investment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Military"
The description "civilian and military equipment provider Datang Telecom Group" has been added to the lede. The description of Datang as a "military" equipment provider is undue in this article, about SMIC. The US government alleges that Datang is tied to the Chinese military in some way, and those allegations can be discussed at Datang Telecom Group, but they are irrelevant here. Qualcomm and Juniper Networks work with the US military (indeed, Qualcomm has its origins largely as a contractor for the US military), but that isn't relevant in the lede of articles about companies that Qualcomm or Juniper do business with or have a stake in. The mention of "military" in the lede here just seems out of place. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)